Team Santorum: We’re aiming for a brokered convention

posted at 12:45 pm on March 12, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Is this an admission that Rick Santorum can’t win the nomination through the primary process, or just a restatement of the belief that we’re heading to a brokered convention anyway? BizzFeed’s Zeke Miller gets a Santorum campaign strategy memo that outlines their argument that Mitt Romney isn’t as far ahead as some believe, and that Santorum will pull together the disaffected conservatives that show up in Tampa:

In a strategy memo pushing back on Mitt Romney’s narrative that it will take an “act of God” to deny him the nomination, advisor John Yob argued that they have a strategy to win — at a contested convention.

Majority Needed for Romney, Not for SantorumMitt Romney must have a majority on the first ballot in order to win the nomination because he will perform worse on subsequent ballots as grassroots conservative delegates decide to back the more conservative candidate. Subsequently, Santorum only needs to be relatively close on the initial ballot in order to win on a later ballot as Romney’s support erodes.

The memo, to be distributed today, indicates that the Santorum campaign seems more concerned with arguing that Romney will not win a majority of delegates to the Republican National Convention, rather than making the case for why he will. Indeed, the over-2,000-word memo only addresses the possibility of Santorum reaching a majority in its final paragraph, and only as a throw-away.

Central to Santorum’s strategy are county and state conventions, which select delegates to the convention in caucus states. Santorum’s campaign asserts that they will outperform their caucus-night delegate shares because convention-goers are by-and-large more conservative than the average Republican voter. But they are making the (weak) assumption that Ron Paul’s libertarian army won’t try the same thing.

In fact, that’s been the assumption all along about the delegate allocation from non-binding primaries. Ron Paul’s campaign has worked hard to get its own people into the county and state conventions in order to swing the actual delegate allocations to Paul, and they have significant organizations in these states to push that strategy. Paul needs that not to win the nomination at a brokered convention — no one thinks Paul can get the nod after having won no states — but to push for his platform and to get a significant speaking slot, either for himself or his son, or both. Santorum’s memo, embedded below, never mentions how his campaign will out-organize both Romney and Paul to gain a higher allocation of delegates than the vote counts indicated in those caucus states — just that he will.

That’s not the only fuzzy thinking, either. Part of the argument is that Santorum can force a proportional allocation onto Florida and Arizona at the Republican convention, which would be a neat trick, considering that the RNC has no legal authority to dictate allocation to any state. It can only restrict the number of delegates seated at the convention and some of their benefits. The memo also includes this curious paragraph:

June 5th – California, New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana, and New Mexico The candidate who wins the most delegates on June 5th will lead the public delegate count going into the national convention. Rick Santorum will also lead the Real Count by this point.

Both California and New Jersey are winner-take-all, and neither is likely to vote for Santorum — not California, surely, and Chris Christie has backed Romney for months in New Jersey. Between the two, that accounts for 222 delegates, so even if Santorum gets all of the delegates from New Mexico and South Dakota (which are proportional primaries) and Montana (a non-binding primary) on June 5th, the delegate count on that date is very likely to be no better than 222-77 for Romney. To the extent that this paragraph is accurate, it’s more of an argument against Santorum’s chances.

What this memo says is that Santorum wants to stay in the race just in case Romney’s candidacy implodes for some reason. That’s not a bad idea, and it won’t hurt to have an alternative with a functioning campaign if that happens. The same argument can be made for Newt Gingrich, too.

Update: I should have said that a Romney implosion was unlikely, which it is; he’s been campaigning for five years now, and he hasn’t had an implosion yet. Also, people on Twitter challenged me on the assumption that Romney will win California, as it does have a fairly active conservative base. However, that base tends more toward fiscal rather than social conservatism, which might benefit Gingrich more if he’s still around. RCP notes three CA polls in February when Santorum rose to the top tier, and all three show Romney leading Santorum — the last two by six points. Unless Santorum really turns around the momentum nationally, Romney is likely to build strength in California, or at least not likely to lose strength.

Update II: California is winner-take-all by Congressional district and with 10 statewide delegates. That means is that we’re likely to see a proportional allocation that heavily favors the popular vote winner, but also likely that a second-place finisher will get some delegates. I’m not sure that helps Santorum if he comes in second; it certainly doesn’t help his argument.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

I didn’t make anything up. Rasmussen made the comments on Sean Hannity’s radio show when he was on talking about his book that just came out recently. Frankly, I don’t give a sh*t whether you or Danish believe me or not.
KickandSwimMom on March 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Find it please. The first rule of the GOP fight club is not to make a claim you cannot substantiate.

That’s because the Mittbots project their own inability to see Romney’s flaws onto those who won’t fall in line to support their candidate.

I feel sorry for the handful of sane Romney supporters. They must be embarrassed by the antics of these Nobody But Romney shills.

JannyMae on March 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

are you able to complete a single post without the word Mittbot? Try Mittler Youth or Mittd!cks or finger deprived mitten dupes. Try any effin’ thing else. You’re a broken record – a boring backstabbing scratched up Compact Disk.

A “base”, by definition, is not composed of those who are antagonistic to an entity – be it a business, stamp collecting club or political party.
whatcat on March 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM

BINGO. All your base are belong to us. It’s kinda fun to watch those who habitually and with hostility dump on the GOP and the amorphous “establishment” claim they represent the base.
Buy Danish on March 12, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Santorum is in effect admitting there is no path to the nomination for him by any normal means.

Even this is a child’s fantasy: he’s going to win CA and NJ? Really? And then change the rules to force AZ and FL to award delegates proportionally? How, Einstein?

The only way would be to control what delegates are seated. BUT to do that you need a majority of delegates on the floor of the convention. If you’ve got a majority, you don’t need a rule change, do you? UNLESS you believe that non-Santorum delegates will vote WITH Santorum to get a majority or plurality of Santorum delegates seated. And they will do this because . . . ?

The Santorum strategy boils down to: we need a freakin’ miracle, so one will happen. Good luck with that.

I didn’t make anything up. Rasmussen made the comments on Sean Hannity’s radio show when he was on talking about his book that just came out recently. Frankly, I don’t give a sh*t whether you or Danish believe me or not.

KickandSwimMom on March 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM

we don’t believe you. I’d call you a shill for Santorum but I’m above that.

And you and Newt have been parroting this same tired crybaby meme for how long now?

Yawn!

Gee, it has had quite an effect on the races since then, huh? This is politics, friend, not beanbag! You have to come at it with a full game.

My own belief is that Newt Gingrich actually sealed his fate as a “viable” Republican presidential candidate over a decade ago when he threw his temper tantrum and quit Congress altogether, calling his Republican colleagues “cannibals.”

That was long before he inauspiciously ever began this campaign, first by alienating his entire first staff and going on a cruise, and then by failing to even qualify for the ballot in his now-home state of VA!

This is ridiculous. It’s like a basketball team that is down by 16 points with a minute and a half left in the 4th quarter. And they keep fouling dragging out the game with the idea that if we only can make all our 3 pointers for the rest of the game (which he haven’t been making all game or else we wouldn’t be in this hole in the first place), and if they miss all their free throws – then we have a shot at winning.

It’s mathematically possible, by highly HIGHLY unlikely. Usually, there are two results, either A) the team that’s fouling ends up getting beat by an even bigger margin or B) they take a couple of points off the spread but still lose.

In Santorum’s case he’s willing to admit that it’s highly unlikely Mitt misses all his free throws, and that he’s going to hit all his threes. He’s just hoping to drag the game out, and have the refs declare him the winner despite having fewer points.

A “base”, by definition, is not composed of those who are antagonistic to an entity – be it a business, stamp collecting club or political party.
whatcat on March 12, 2012 at 3:46 PM

BINGO. All your base are belong to us. It’s kinda fun to watch those who habitually and with hostility dump on the GOP and the amorphous “establishment” claim they represent the base.
Buy Danish on March 12, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Oh, you mean the self-appointed Conservative Purity Police, Internet Division, who insist every single candidate and officeholder give 100% allegiance to their narrowly-drawn definitions and policy preferences? They are a hoot, just laugh at them and point at their propeller beanies.

These nutters have always been around, always threatening to desert the Party to “send a message.” Their message is always received: “We are unreliable partners who will desert you on our whim – do not waste any time addressing our concerns because it won’t help you at all!”

One definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the exact same thing, but always expecting a different result.

These nutters have always been around, always threatening to desert the Party to “send a message.” Their message is always received: “We are unreliable partners who will desert you on our whim – do not waste any time addressing our concerns because it won’t help you at all!”

Adjoran on March 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

If Santorum wins the nomination by dint of a brokered convention where my primary vote gets magically negated by rules too convoluted and arcane for me to grasp, I’ll pull the lever for him in the general election but then color me finished with the GOP. Enough is enough.
troyriser_gopftw on March 12, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Is this an admission that Rick Santorum can’t win the nomination through the primary process, or just a restatement of the belief that we’re heading to a brokered convention anyway?

He has already lost and he knows it. There is no chance that he will obtain the delegates needed or even to come close to catching Mitt. The sad part about this admission is that he is doing nothing but attempting to make it harder for Mitt to beat Obama. The man is no patriot.

And what if his great fantasy of a brokered came about? It would mean that the decision would not be made by the will of the millions who chose Mitt. He is hoping for the very establishment insiders he decries to decide the matter in the proverbial smoke-filled room. Santo, Newt, Paul: You’re toast. Give it up and leave Mitt to beat PBHO.

These nutters have always been around, always threatening to desert the Party to “send a message.” Their message is always received: “We are unreliable partners who will desert you on our whim – do not waste any time addressing our concerns because it won’t help you at all!”
Adjoran on March 12, 2012 at 4:46 PM

The thing is, stomping your feet and screaming “I hate you” might work for some 3 year old with irresponsible parents. But not so well outside of that.

It would be the same if it were Newt, Santo, Perry, Bachmann, Pawlenty and so on – whoever the party has voted for as it’s candidate. Although in those cases the number of voters throwing such a conniption fit would be much larger, as those candidates have even less support.

And what if his great fantasy of a brokered came about? It would mean that the decision would not be made by the will of the millions who chose Mitt. He is hoping for the very establishment insiders he decries to decide the matter in the proverbial smoke-filled room. Santo, Newt, Paul: You’re toast. Give it up and leave Mitt to beat PBHO.

MJBrutus on March 12, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I think/hope Santorum and the rest will come around before too long. They fought the good fight but it’s near time to face the reality of the situation and line up behind the peoples choice.

That’s because the Mittbots project their own inability to see Romney’s flaws onto those who won’t fall in line to support their candidate.

I feel sorry for the handful of sane Romney supporters. They must be embarrassed by the antics of these Nobody But Romney shills.

JannyMae on March 12, 2012 at 2:01 PM

You’re the reason why I don’t tell my friends I’m a Republican, you make it not cool to be one because they assume I associate with rabid, mouth breathers. Breitbart was a cool Republican and he was on record saying he couldn’t stand party dividers. It’s too bad he left us so early because he was giving people like me a real voice in the party. Now we’re stuck with the mouth breathers carrying the brand again.

I like Santorum, but if his strategy is to inhibit Romney and win at a brokered convention then he is doing Obama a huge favor. I understand him trying to knock out Gingrich in the South and catch fire, but if that doesn’t happen he needs to drop and I think he will. It would be such a Ted Kennedy move not to….Rick Santorum is no Ted Kennedy!

I can certainly understand why one would want to continue fighting after working so hard for so long. Rick has done more with less than any other candidate and deserves our respect. But the math just doesn’t add up and for the good of the party ant the future of the country he should not fight til the convention if he does not have the delegates.

I can certainly understand why one would want to continue fighting after working so hard for so long. Rick has done more with less than any other candidate and deserves our respect. But the math just doesn’t add up and for the good of the party ant the future of the country he should not fight til the convention if he does not have the delegates.

steel guy on March 12, 2012 at 5:48 PM

The math just doesn’t add up, huh? Is that an implicit admission that Romney DOES NOT, in fact, have it wrapped up now? LOLOL The duplicitous Rombots never cease to amaze me.

You’re the reason why I don’t tell my friends I’m a Republican, you make it not cool to be one because they assume I associate with rabid, mouth breathers. Breitbart was a cool Republican and he was on record saying he couldn’t stand party dividers. It’s too bad he left us so early because he was giving people like me a real voice in the party. Now we’re stuck with the mouth breathers carrying the brand again.

1984 in real life on March 12, 2012 at 5:35 PM

no sh!t! It’s like Breitbart left us and now we’re left with the uncool pubs. If it wasn’t for Red Eye and Ace I might go live on one of those libertarian islands at sea. Don’t despair my Orwellian compatriot…there are still plenty of cool pubs left. I’ve got a bookmark list full of ‘em if you’d like to defect and meet some real visionaries.

mittens is the second worst Romney behind Sir Willard Romney, who thought mittens should include all fingers but the pinkie…and whom totally bogarted the covers every night and sometimes kicked his wife out of bed in the morning to make him breakfast.

The math just doesn’t add up, huh? Is that an implicit admission that Romney DOES NOT, in fact, have it wrapped up now? LOLOL The duplicitous Rombots never cease to amaze me.
gryphon202 on March 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM

There you go again. The math does ad up, Santorum can’t win, Newt can’t win, but it’s going to take a long time to get an official win. How many times does this simple e.z. point need to be made to you??

The math just doesn’t add up, huh? Is that an implicit admission that Romney DOES NOT, in fact, have it wrapped up now? LOLOL The duplicitous Rombots never cease to amaze me.
gryphon202 on March 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM

give up on the Rombots! It’s not original, it’s not funny, it’s not anything but dumb. Try Mittiots…try Mittsareforbaseball…try Mitt’s hair is way too fabulous…try any effin’ thing – just be original.

There you go again. The math does ad up, Santorum can’t win, Newt can’t win, but it’s going to take a long time to get an official win. How many times does this simple e.z. point need to be made to you??

Buy Danish on March 12, 2012 at 6:43 PM

An official win comes with 1144 delegates committed to vote for a candidate — which Mitt doesn’t have. If he really had this wrapped up, the Rombots wouldn’t be begging us to throw away our votes now. Your argument is self-defeating.

are you able to complete a single post without the word Mittbot? Try Mittler Youth or Mittd!cks or finger deprived mitten dupes. Try any effin’ thing else. You’re a broken record – a boring backstabbing scratched up Compact Disk.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I’m not surprised you ignored me…I am on your ignore list. I’ll give you my personal definition of ignore – I’m too cowardly to reply – and I’m JannyMae! What does it matter! I’m an old timer who doesn’t know sh!t. That gives me the right to ignore anyone and anything than challenges my narrow perception of reality.

I’m not surprised you ignored me…I am on your ignore list. I’ll give you my personal definition of ignore – I’m too cowardly to reply – and I’m JannyMae! What does it matter! I’m an old timer who doesn’t know sh!t. That gives me the right to ignore anyone and anything than challenges my narrow perception of reality.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 6:57 PM

So you don’t like “Mittbots” or “Rombots.” When are you going to slap the cuffs on me and haul me into the HotAir jail, Mister Thread Policeman?

No kidding. As I have repeatedly said, it was impossible for any candidate to reach that point [1144 delegates] until the end of April.

So if Romney does not have the requisite number of delegates yet, on what basis do you believe that he has this in the bag?

Who is asking you to “throw away your vote”?

Every Rombot who has ever tried to convince me that Romney IS the winner as things now stand. If you are so sure he’s as good as got it in the bag, who I vote for shouldn’t matter. And yet, for some reason, you and others seem to believe that it does, Romney’s sure thing notwithstanding.

I beg to differ. Your support of the ultimate losers is not only self-defeating it’s defeating defeating.

Buy Danish on March 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM

As I said, if the candidate I support, whoever that may be, is going to be the eventual loser, my vote shouldn’t matter to you at all. And yet for some reason it does. Try being honest for change. You know as well as I do that Romney doesn’t have the nomination wrapped up yet. And you must have nightmares about the terrible doomsday scenarios that are possible if he gets to the convention without the magic number of 1144. I’ll be the first to admit that’s an unlikely outcome. But unlikely =/= impossible. I’ll believe that Romney has it wrapped up when I hear the hyperbolic hyperventilating from his partisans stop.

“Something about the U.S. economy isn’t adding up. At 8.3%, the unemployment rate has fallen 0.7 percentage point from a year earlier and is down 1.7 percentage points from a peak of 10% in October 2009. Many other measures of the job market are improving. Companies have expanded payrolls by more than 200,000 a month for the past three months, according to Labor Department data. And the number of people filing claims for government unemployment benefits has fallen. Yet the economy is barely growing. Many economists in the past few weeks have again reduced their estimates of growth. The economy by many estimates is on track to grow at an annual rate of less than 2% in the first three months of 2012. The economy expanded just 1.7% last year. And since the final months of 2009, when unemployment peaked, the economy has expanded at a pretty paltry 2.5% annual rate.” Hilsenrath’s rhetorical straw man: “How can an economy that is growing so slowly produce such big declines in unemployment?”

Labor Force Participation rate: Predicted to drop to 63.1% by the end of 2012 (and 62.5% by the end of 2015). Funny then that the US will have no unemployment left when the participation rate drops to 58.5%.

America [is] slipping ever further into a state of permanent “temp job” status, but that a “quality analysis” of the jobs created shows that the US job formation machinery is badly hurt, and just like the marginal utility of debt now hitting a critical inflection point, so the “marginal utility” of incremental jobs is now negative, which means that Obama, or whichever administration, can easily represent to be growing jobs, and declining the unemployment rate by whatever gimmick necessary. Yet these very jobs are now generating far less in so very critical tax revenue for the US treasury, and continue to declining steadily in quality.

So now Lindsay “Grahamnesty” who’s good at Obamamath also says the Repub race is “mathematically” over. Hmmm, hey Grahams, wanna go ask the world champion St. Louis Cardinals how mathematically over it was for them on the last night of last year’s baseball regular season? Oh yeah, and in the 10th inning of WS Gm6?

So now Lindsay “Grahamnesty” who’s good at Obamamath also says the Repub race is “mathematically” over. Hmmm, hey Grahams, wanna go ask the world champion St. Louis Cardinals how mathematically over it was for them on the last night of last year’s baseball regular season? Oh yeah, and in the 10th inning of WS Gm6?

Like Yogi says: “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

stukinIL4now on March 12, 2012 at 8:52 PM

This. The fools who talk about how it’s “mathematically over” and then proceed in the same breath to complain about the still very real possibility of a brokered convention insult my intelligence.

So if Romney does not have the requisite number of delegates yet, on what basis do you believe that he has this in the bag?

It’s called advanced primary math.

Every Rombot who has ever tried to convince me that Romney IS the winner as things now stand. If you are so sure he’s as good as got it in the bag, who I vote for shouldn’t matter. And yet, for some reason, you and others seem to believe that it does, Romney’s sure thing notwithstanding.

When will you be voting – what primary?

As I said, if the candidate I support, whoever that may be, is going to be the eventual loser, my vote shouldn’t matter to you at all. And yet for some reason it does. Try being honest for change. You know as well as I do that Romney doesn’t have the nomination wrapped up yet. And you must have nightmares about the terrible doomsday scenarios that are possible if he gets to the convention without the magic number of 1144. I’ll be the first to admit that’s an unlikely outcome. But unlikely =/= impossible. I’ll believe that Romney has it wrapped up when I hear the hyperbolic hyperventilating from his partisans stop.
gryphon202 on March 12, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Ultimately he has it locked up. Are you rooting for Obama or what? Provide a reasonable scenario where it’s to our benefit to wait until September to have a broke offical nominee and then take on Obama for the win on November 7th. Thanks in advance

I don’t remember Palin supporters complaining about excessive usage of the term “Palinistas.”
gryphon202 on March 12, 2012 at 7:01 PM

You remember wrong. Not only were commenters offended by “Palinistas”, there were some who raised hell because they used an adorable photo of her winking from the 2008 convention. Palinoia…

It’s called “wishcasting.” I have been saying for nearly a year that I have every intention of doing everything in my power to prevent Willard Milton Romney from securing the nomination. Why that should change now, I have yet to receive a satisfying answer.

When will you be voting – what primary?

In a relatively late and insignificant state. So if you don’t think my vote should count simply because Romney was savvy enough to be a front runner six months out from the convention, you can kindly get bent.

Ultimately he has it locked up. Are you rooting for Obama or what? Provide a reasonable scenario where it’s to our benefit to wait until September to have a broke offical nominee and then take on Obama for the win on November 7th. Thanks in advance

I am saving my anti-Obama bile for the general election. Until then, I refuse to support, in any way shape or form, a candidate I despise in his quest for a nomination I believe he doesn’t deserve. When the general election rolls around, I am voting against Obama. Until then, no one gets to decide how I vote until yours-f**king-truly.

I don’t remember Palin supporters complaining about excessive usage of the term “Palinistas.”
gryphon202 on March 12, 2012 at 7:01 PM

You remember wrong. Not only were commenters offended by “Palinistas”, there were some who raised hell because they used an adorable photo of her winking from the 2008 convention. Palinoia…

Buy Danish on March 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM

People were righteously insulted by the term itself. Not because of “lack of creativity” or “stupidity” or any such specious bullshit. I can recognize people trying to get under my skin. Sometimes it even works. But Willard Milton still isn’t getting my primary vote.

In a relatively late and insignificant state. So if you don’t think my vote should count simply because Romney was savvy enough to be a front runner six months out from the convention, you can kindly get bent.

What matters is that Obama be sent back to Chicago. States/voters get left behind every time we go through this scenario, I just don’t recall so much petulance before. The process should be reformed but hanging on so you can cast your vote while knowing full well it won’t make any difference is not helpful to the goal of saving this country. And frankly I don’t even believe you. I think you want a brokered convention come hell or high water because you’re an enthusiastic member of the Big Chip on My Shoulder Gang.

People were righteously insulted by the term itself. Blah blah blah.

Boo freaking hoo. We don’t like the term Palinista. WAAAAAAH! How thin-skinned can you get?

math is a funny thing – it means the mittster is the winner. My father is a mathematician…I almost majored in mathematics except I don’t like my father. Math says there’s one candidate who can win – it’s the d@mn mittster. I’ll take the d@mn mittster over Santz – I like my bedroom as is.

What matters is that Obama be sent back to Chicago. States/voters get left behind every time we go through this scenario, I just don’t recall so much petulance before. The process should be reformed but hanging on so you can cast your vote while knowing full well it won’t make any difference is not helpful to the goal of saving this country. And frankly I don’t even believe you. I think you want a brokered convention come hell or high water because you’re an enthusiastic member of the Big Chip on My Shoulder Gang.

Which is precisely why I am voting against Obama when that time comes. I am saying that Mitt doesn’t get my vote in the primary. PERIOD. You are advancing the non-sequitur that Obama must be defeated, with which I agree. The former is not some kind of prerequisite to the latter, argumentum ad nauseam to the contrary.

Boo freaking hoo. We don’t like the term Palinista. WAAAAAAH! How thin-skinned can you get?

Buy Danish on March 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM

That makes about as much sense as complaining about the terms “rombot” and “mittbot” for supposed “lack of creativity” and/or “intelligence,” doesn’t it? Anyhow, that’s chasing a rabbit trail now. Palin’s not running. Mitt is, and so is Santorum. You’ll vote for whoever you’re going to vote for, I’ll do the same, and it will come out in the wash — even if it takes multiple votes at the convention before it happens.

math is a funny thing – it means the mittster is the winner. My father is a mathematician…I almost majored in mathematics except I don’t like my father. Math says there’s one candidate who can win – it’s the d@mn mittster. I’ll take the d@mn mittster over Santz – I like my bedroom as is.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Then how come so many Rombots are shitting themselves over the prospect of a brokered convention, Chron? If a brokered convention remains the barest of possibilities, and by “barest of possibilites” I mean “a topic of conversation among the party base,” Romney most certainly does not have this in the bag “mathematically” or otherwise.

And this isn’t even a Palin thread. Ironic.
gryphon202 on March 12, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Nothing “ironic” about it at all. You brought up Palin when you whined about the term “Palinista”. It’s not demeaning in the least (unlike, say, “mittens” or “Mittbot” or Rombot” (which I don’t whine about – just get annoyed by the lack of original writing when it’s overused like the tedious word “shill”). It’s like mewling over the word “Californian”. I’ve called the whaaambulance for you…

Nothing “ironic” about it at all. You brought up Palin when you whined about the term “Palinista”. It’s not demeaning in the least (unlike, say, “mittens” or “Mittbot” or Rombot” (which I don’t whine about – just get annoyed by the lack of original writing when it’s overused like the tedious word “shill”). It’s like mewling over the word “Californian”. I’ve called the whaaambulance for you…

Buy Danish on March 12, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Exsqueeze me? I’m not the one complaining about being called a Palinista, Pal. Others on this thread are complaining about my use of the term “Rombot” because it “lacks creativity” or something. You can call me whatever the bloody blue f**k you want. But don’t think you’re going to change my mind about voting in the primaries without something somewhat more compelling than that.

Others on this thread are complaining about my use of the term “Rombot” because it “lacks creativity” or something. You can call me whatever the bloody blue f**k you want. But don’t think you’re going to change my mind about voting in the primaries without something somewhat more compelling than that.
gryphon202 on March 12, 2012 at 9:53 PM

OMG. You still don’t get the difference between “Palinista” (not derogatory) and the tedious Rombot/Mittens/blah blah blah (derogatory).

PS. Thanks for demonstrating once again that you are a member of the Big Nasty Chip On My Shoulder Club with your over the top ragey rage.

Then how come so many Rombots are shitting themselves over the prospect of a brokered convention, Chron? If a brokered convention remains the barest of possibilities, and by “barest of possibilites” I mean “a topic of conversation among the party base,” Romney most certainly does not have this in the bag “mathematically” or otherwise.

gryphon202 on March 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

remember when I called you an idiot? I was sorta joking but I was right. It’s a mathematical certainty that Mitt is the nominee. I really don’t like mittens, but math is a certainty. Math says mittens the eminently effin’ electable gryphon…mittenns is the nominee.
Sh!t – I’m sorry DHChron – mittens is the nominee. My dad sucks and math sucks.

remember when I called you an idiot? I was sorta joking but I was right. It’s a mathematical certainty that Mitt is the nominee. I really don’t like mittens, but math is a certainty. Math says mittens the eminently effin’ electable gryphon…mittenns is the nominee.
Sh!t – I’m sorry DHChron – mittens is the nominee. My dad sucks and math sucks.

DHChron on March 12, 2012 at 10:13 PM

If what you say is true, and I have absolutely no reason to believe it is, then I reject the possibility of a brokered convention and ergo the harm it could supposedly do, out of hand.

OMG. You still don’t get the difference between “Palinista” (not derogatory) and the tedious Rombot/Mittens/blah blah blah (derogatory).

PS. Thanks for demonstrating once again that you are a member of the Big Nasty Chip On My Shoulder Club with your over the top ragey rage.

Buy Danish on March 12, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Well thanks for telling me what I believe and how I feel, douchebag. RAGE RAGE RAGE! SNARL! GROWL! What the hell ever.

No, Romney doesn’t have it locked up. But he is pretty close: things would need to take an immediate full reversal of the way they’ve gone so far to stop him.

It’s not impossible he wouldn’t lock up the 1144, but it would take a tsunami for it to happen, and there is no sign of any such thing other than in the hopeful breasts of the Santorum and Gingrich supporters.

The real point is, you never say this stuff publicly (that you’re playing for a brokered convention), it’s just dumb. It’s like expressing an interest in the Veep slot, no one will take you seriously for the top spot any more.

The point for them is to discredit Ed and HotAir.

Doomberg on March 12, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Hey, Ed chose to throw in with Santorum of his own free will. He’s a big boy, and can take the criticism.

This marks the beginning of the end for the unelectable Sanctimonious Senator Santorum.

Social issues extremist Rick Santorum should take a lesson from the much classier and more honorable man Mitt Romney, who, in 2008, put his country ahead of his ego, dropped out of the race and endorsed McCain, rather than allow the Republican in-fighting to help the Democrats’ chances of winning.

Rick “Bedroom Policeman” Santorum, who would ensure Barack Obama’s landslide reelection victory, is only helping Obama’s chances of reelection by staying in the race at this point.

And while the Santorum supporters aim for a brokered convention, Team Obama continues lay the groundwork for the general election. This admission by the Samtorum campaign that they want a brokered convention which by the way, always nominates losers, just shows how he is putting himself ahead of his country. I didn’t think a guy who lost his re-election bid by a record shattering 710,000 votes could have such an ego but I guess I was wrong.

In the last 100 years there’s been brokered conventions. Not once did that party win the presidency. The candidates would be so bruised and battered that 0webama would almost be guaranteed another term. I can appreciate the will to fight hard for what you want but Santorum’s only hope now is a kamikaze strategy. Mitt would show up still with more delegates than Ricky. Yet he would expect to somehow get the nod? Wow. What a toolbox

And while the Santorum supporters aim for a brokered convention, Team Obama continues lay the groundwork for the general election. This admission by the Samtorum campaign that they want a brokered convention which by the way, always nominates losers, just shows how he is putting himself ahead of his country. I didn’t think a guy who lost his re-election bid by a record shattering 710,000 votes could have such an ego but I guess I was wrong.

Santorum is still my guy, but I have to agree with Gingrich on this one: nominating a liberal to go against another liberal and expect to win that argument is a losing proposition. No matter how much you attempt to slant it.

And while the Santorum supporters aim for a brokered convention, Team Obama continues lay the groundwork for the general election. kurtd on March 12, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Yep. This thing needs to end, and soon.Minnfidel on March 13, 2012 at 12:14 AM

.
“Team Obama” is getting nowhere.

This primary could go unsettled all the way to convention (I’m NOT predicting it will, BTW) and the eventual nominee will have no trouble defeating Obama.
.
But feel free to ‘panic’, and wring your hands in anxiety anyhow.

Do you really want Rick Santorum to hold the highest office in the land? The man who said this?:

“And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn’t exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold — Griswold was the contraceptive case — and abortion. And now we’re just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you — this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family.”

And this?:

“I don’t think it works. I think it’s harmful to women, I think it’s harmful to our society to have a society that says that sex outside of marriage is something that should be encouraged or tolerated, particularly among the young. I think it has, as we’ve seen, very harmful long-term consequences for society. So birth control to me enables that and I don’t think it’s a healthy thing for our country.”